Case Digest (G.R. No. 1492)
Facts:
Tan Machan v. Maria Gan Aya de la Trinidad et al., G.R. No. 1492, April 15, 1904, the Supreme Court En Banc, Cooper, J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff, Tan Machan, brought suit against Maria Gan Aya de la Trinidad et al. as heirs and legal representatives of the late Senora Ruperta Gualinco, and against Carmen Canete (sued as a purchaser having contracted with the heirs). The complaint alleged that Senora Gualinco executed a promissory note for $9,000 dated August 9, 1894, payable to Don Clemente Zulueta; that Tan Machan and one Lim Ponson signed the note as sureties; that Gualinco defaulted and plaintiff paid the debt, thereby becoming subrogated to Zulueta's rights and entitled to judgment for the balance due and to have the mortgaged hacienda and appurtenances subjected to satisfy the claim.
At trial Dona Carmen Canete failed to answer and a default judgment was entered against her, subjecting whatever claim she might assert in the property to the debt. The heirs denied that the plaintiff and Lim Ponson were sureties, asserting instead that they were co-principal makers and had divided the loan proceeds equally. The plaintiff introduced entries from his books showing the note as a bill payable and records of payments by him to Zulueta (payments of $5,000 on February 9, 1895, and $4,000 on February 28, 1895), and claimed payment of the debt on April 27, 1895.
The Court of First Instance rendered judgment for the plaintiff for $7,301.03 principal and $3,569.08 interest, and subjected the hacienda, machinery, and appurtenances to satisfy the debt. The defendants appealed, assigning errors principally that (1) the trial court improperly admitted proof that the plaintiff and Lim Ponson signed as sureties; (2) the court erred in admitting the plaintiff's books of account; and (3) the court wrongly found that the note-makers were sureties rather than co-principals.
On appeal before the Supreme Court the defendants also argued defects in the books' admissibility under the Code of Commerce and under article 1228 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court considered the assignments but declined to review the factual contention on whether the makers were principals or sureties because no motion for a new trial h...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the appellate court review the trial court's findings of fact on whether the note-makers were principals or sureties when no motion for a new trial was filed?
- Did the trial court err in admitting proof that Tan Machan and Lim Ponson signed the promissory note as sureties, contrary to the parol evidence rule?
- Did the trial court err in admitting the plaintiff's books of account into evidence when the defendants objected that they were not kept in accordance with the Code of Commerce and, alternatively, that they were...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)